Im laughing at all his useless comparisons. "i guess driving drunk is ok as long as nobody gets hurt" and a few others.

The problem is DD is illegal. Kicking a partially full can into a crowd during a celebration, although not incredibly bright, is NOT illegal. Unless it has malicious intent, which it obviously didnt.

Throwing a rock into a crowded room also falls under malicious intent too AM, so that example is lost as well.

Nobody thinks is was very bright, but everyone except AM knows there was no malicious intent or illegal. AM seems to think he can make up these examples and we will all see the light. Problem is, hes comparing apples to oranges. No hes a Thug. Its amazing how some people just throw around words and label people. I cant stand judgemental people.

Im laughing at all his useless comparisons. "i guess driving drunk is ok as long as nobody gets hurt" and a few others.

The problem is DD is illegal. Kicking a partially full can into a crowd during a celebration, although not incredibly bright, is NOT illegal. Unless it has malicious intent, which it obviously didnt.

Throwing a rock into a crowded room also falls under malicious intent too AM, so that example is lost as well.

Nobody thinks is was very bright, but everyone except AM knows there was no malicious intent or illegal. AM seems to think he can make up these examples and we will all see the light. Problem is, hes comparing apples to oranges. No hes a Thug. Its amazing how some people just throw around words and label people. I cant stand judgemental people.

Im laughing at all his useless comparisons. "i guess driving drunk is ok as long as nobody gets hurt" and a few others.

The problem is DD is illegal. Kicking a partially full can into a crowd during a celebration, although not incredibly bright, is NOT illegal. Unless it has malicious intent, which it obviously didnt.

Throwing a rock into a crowded room also falls under malicious intent too AM, so that example is lost as well.

Nobody thinks is was very bright, but everyone except AM knows there was no malicious intent or illegal. AM seems to think he can make up these examples and we will all see the light. Problem is, hes comparing apples to oranges. No hes a Thug. Its amazing how some people just throw around words and label people. I cant stand judgemental people.

Actually, he's comparing rocks and 2 ton vehicles to beer cans. Apples to oranges would be a much closer comparison by comparison. The damaging impact of an apple used as a projectile would be more closely relatated to an orange.

The correct answer to all of them is that no one knows, just as no one kows what happened as a result of this incident. And quite frankly, it's none of our business. We can speculate what might happen, but we don't know.

_________________________________

Because Reckless Endangerment is a Class B Misdemeanor

Let us understand, Gomes not only endangered the man who was hit, but he endangered every fan in that entire section. He actions were a menace to public safety. If you can't see that then I hope that never happens to you or anyone in your family.

Now....................

So go ahead and speculate

Gomes would had charged into the stands

His teammates would had supported him - maybe trying to pull him off though

Police and Fenway security would have carried the guy off

Fenway would have new policies that would be announced before each game

Ownership would had pressed charges and banned the guy for life from Fenway

The media would be talking about it and sympathisizing with Gomes while heavily criticizing the fan

No one would be referring to the damage as just a boo-boo

The fan would not be able to trade his autograph or season tickets to watch him work in exchange for a bailout

So what you saying is... IF a fan was kicking beer cans onto the field ans soxs players were in the field catching beer and having a great time that if it hit a player like Gomes he would run into the stands????... Your very very stupid !!!!!!

Im laughing at all his useless comparisons. "i guess driving drunk is ok as long as nobody gets hurt" and a few others.

The problem is DD is illegal. Kicking a partially full can into a crowd during a celebration, although not incredibly bright, is NOT illegal. Unless it has malicious intent, which it obviously didnt.

Throwing a rock into a crowded room also falls under malicious intent too AM, so that example is lost as well.

Nobody thinks is was very bright, but everyone except AM knows there was no malicious intent or illegal. AM seems to think he can make up these examples and we will all see the light. Problem is, hes comparing apples to oranges. No hes a Thug. Its amazing how some people just throw around words and label people. I cant stand judgemental people.

Actually, he's comparing rocks and 2 ton vehicles to beer cans. Apples to oranges would be a much closer comparison by comparison. The damaging impact of an apple used as a projectile would be more closely relatated to an orange.

If you kick a beer can into a crowd and you kill someone, and there was NO INTENT, are you saying that is a LEGAL act? I will assume (I HOPE!) that you agree that a crime was committed.......

But in that same incident if no one got hurt, then it was not an illegal act. - that is what everyone seems to think here with few exceptions......

OK...

Then with Drinking and Driving......It is illegal regardless if anyone got hurt or not. OK fine.......then why don't the same rules apply to the beer can? If there is no one is hurt as a result of drinking and driving then why is it a crime? Both actions are putting innocent people at risk.

Note: Of course the mere act of kicking a can is not illegal. The mere act of swinging a baseball bat is not illegal either. But if you do these things in the middle of a crowd - THAT DID NOT VOLUNTEER TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR GAME - then you are engaging in Reckless Behavior which is a crime. Automatic arrest. If there is an injured party that will be correlated to the amount of damage in a civil matter (although it can affect the degree of the crime and the punishment). But also, and make no mistake about it, technically even the people who ducked and were not hit are considered injured parties.

Again, what did Gomes think would happen when he kicked full cans of beer into the stands?

If you kick a beer can into a crowd and you kill someone, and there was NO INTENT, are you saying that is a LEGAL act? I will assume (I HOPE!) that you agree that a crime was committed.......

But in that same incident if no one got hurt, then it was not an illegal act. - that is what everyone seems to think here with few exceptions......

OK..Then with Drinking and Driving......It is illegal regardless if anyone got hurt or not. OK fine.......then why don't the same rules apply to the beer can? If there is no one is hurt as a result of drinking and driving then why is it a crime? Both actions are putting innocent people at risk.

Note: Of course the mere act of kicking a can is not illegal. The mere act of swinging a baseball bat is not illegal either. But if you do these things in the middle of a crowd - THAT DID NOT VOLUNTEER TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR GAME - then you are engaging in Reckless Behavior which is a crime. Automatic arrest. If there is an injured party that will be correlated to the amount of damage in a civil matter (although it can affect the degree of the crime and the punishment). But also, and make no mistake about it, technically even the people who ducked and were not hit are considered injured parties.

Again, what did Gomes think would happen when he kicked full cans of beer into the stands?

If you kick a beer can into a crowd and you kill someone, and there was NO INTENT, are you saying that is a LEGAL act? I will assume (I HOPE!) that you agree that a crime was committed.......

Did he kill anyone? no, so why even go there? But for arguements sake, no it still wouldnt be illegal if there was no intent, but of course there would be a case against him.

But in that same incident if no one got hurt, then it was not an illegal act. - that is what everyone seems to think here with few exceptions......

OK...

Thats NOT what anyone is saying. Just stop trying to justify your arguement. We agree is wasnt the smartest move, but its NOT illegal.

Then with Drinking and Driving......It is illegal regardless if anyone got hurt or not. OK fine.......then why don't the same rules apply to the beer can? If there is no one is hurt as a result of drinking and driving then why is it a crime? Both actions are putting innocent people at risk.

once again, it doesnt apply because of malicious intent. It was obvious they were having some fun. We agree it wasnt very smart though. Doesnt make him a bad person or make the act illegal.

Note: Of course the mere act of kicking a can is not illegal. The mere act of swinging a baseball bat is not illegal either. But if you do these things in the middle of a crowd - THAT DID NOT VOLUNTEER TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR GAME - then you are engaging in Reckless Behavior which is a crime. Automatic arrest. If there is an injured party that will be correlated to the amount of damage in a civil matter (although it can affect the degree of the crime and the punishment). But also, and make no mistake about it, technically even the people who ducked and were not hit are considered injured parties.

Malicious intent, go look it up. You cant just make the law up.

Nobody is saying the injured man cant get legal representation AM. Most of us realize that your comparisons arent that good. it wasnt an illegal or malicious act. Nobody was killed. Something unfortunate came about during a celebration where some bad judgement was used. Putting everything into the right context and using the law, its pretty easy to realize that hes not going to jail, nor should he. Hes not a bad person or a "Thug" like you suggest because of the coco incident. fact of that matter is, if Gomes was on my team I would have been cheering him on if the roles were reversed in that brawl. The law is the law AM. malicious intent.

Again, what did Gomes think would happen when he kicked full cans of beer into the stands?

If you kick a beer can into a crowd and you kill someone, and there was NO INTENT, are you saying that is a LEGAL act? I will assume (I HOPE!) that you agree that a crime was committed.......

Did he kill anyone? no, so why even go there? But for arguements sake, no it still wouldnt be illegal if there was no intent, but of course there would be a case against him.

But in that same incident if no one got hurt, then it was not an illegal act. - that is what everyone seems to think here with few exceptions......

OK...

Thats NOT what anyone is saying. Just stop trying to justify your arguement. We agree is wasnt the smartest move, but its NOT illegal.

Then with Drinking and Driving......It is illegal regardless if anyone got hurt or not. OK fine.......then why don't the same rules apply to the beer can? If there is no one is hurt as a result of drinking and driving then why is it a crime? Both actions are putting innocent people at risk.

once again, it doesnt apply because of malicious intent. It was obvious they were having some fun. We agree it wasnt very smart though. Doesnt make him a bad person or make the act illegal.

Note: Of course the mere act of kicking a can is not illegal. The mere act of swinging a baseball bat is not illegal either. But if you do these things in the middle of a crowd - THAT DID NOT VOLUNTEER TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR GAME - then you are engaging in Reckless Behavior which is a crime. Automatic arrest. If there is an injured party that will be correlated to the amount of damage in a civil matter (although it can affect the degree of the crime and the punishment). But also, and make no mistake about it, technically even the people who ducked and were not hit are considered injured parties.

Malicious intent, go look it up. You cant just make the law up.

Nobody is saying the injured man cant get legal representation AM. Most of us realize that your comparisons arent that good. it wasnt an illegal or malicious act. Nobody was killed. Something unfortunate came about during a celebration where some bad judgement was used. Putting everything into the right context and using the law, its pretty easy to realize that hes not going to jail, nor should he. Hes not a bad person or a "Thug" like you suggest because of the coco incident. fact of that matter is, if Gomes was on my team I would have been cheering him on if the roles were reversed in that brawl. The law is the law AM. malicious intent.

Again, what did Gomes think would happen when he kicked full cans of beer into the stands?

So no law suit:http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2013/09/27/a-week-later-jonny-gomes-still-feels-awful-about-fans-run-in-with-beer-can/

Gomes is a class act, and the guy is actually more upset with himself than Gomes.

I'm sorry that Greg Hanley didn't catch the punted beer can. Will Middlebrooks can relax as he won't be playing at the hot corner at Fenway next season.

Greg, my man, if you read this thread, you can now test out your throwing arm on andrew mitch. We'll look him up in Connecticut, tie him to a cross (where he thinks he belongs anyway) and you can pitch half-empty beer cars at him. It'll be as exciting as watching the Red Sox throughout the playoffs.

Also, don't worry about the legal ramifications. This sheriff knows that he's tied up the courts with frivilous law suits in that district. I'll contact my boys up in those parts. Everybody, including the defense attorneys, will be happy to let this one ride.

First, I have to agree with andrewmitch to an extent. I am not about to attach a "thug" label to Gomes or try to evaluate his personality, but the guy was waaaaay out of line kicking a beer can into the stands. That is foolish and dangerous, and their will probably be compensation for the victim at some point. Players should know you don't do things like this. They all know about the Hamilton incident whewre he committed the friendly act of trying to throw a ball to a fan, only to see him plunge to his demise. And THAT was an attempt to throw a catchable object to a waiting and expecting observer. A flying can spinning as it will is much, much more dangerous than a lobbed ball, and can certainly do a lot of bodily harm. Imagine of Gomes just fired baseballs randomy into the stands as hard as he could, and them remember that that action would still have been safer.

Second, stop defending Gomes. This was a bad, bad idea by him, and he should know better, not only as a ballplayer, but also as an adult...

If you kick a beer can into a crowd and you kill someone, and there was NO INTENT, are you saying that is a LEGAL act? I will assume (I HOPE!) that you agree that a crime was committed.......

Did he kill anyone? no, so why even go there? But for arguements sake, no it still wouldnt be illegal if there was no intent, but of course there would be a case against him.

But in that same incident if no one got hurt, then it was not an illegal act. - that is what everyone seems to think here with few exceptions......

OK...

Thats NOT what anyone is saying. Just stop trying to justify your arguement. We agree is wasnt the smartest move, but its NOT illegal.

Then with Drinking and Driving......It is illegal regardless if anyone got hurt or not. OK fine.......then why don't the same rules apply to the beer can? If there is no one is hurt as a result of drinking and driving then why is it a crime? Both actions are putting innocent people at risk.

once again, it doesnt apply because of malicious intent. It was obvious they were having some fun. We agree it wasnt very smart though. Doesnt make him a bad person or make the act illegal.

Note: Of course the mere act of kicking a can is not illegal. The mere act of swinging a baseball bat is not illegal either. But if you do these things in the middle of a crowd - THAT DID NOT VOLUNTEER TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR GAME - then you are engaging in Reckless Behavior which is a crime. Automatic arrest. If there is an injured party that will be correlated to the amount of damage in a civil matter (although it can affect the degree of the crime and the punishment). But also, and make no mistake about it, technically even the people who ducked and were not hit are considered injured parties.

Malicious intent, go look it up. You cant just make the law up.

Nobody is saying the injured man cant get legal representation AM. Most of us realize that your comparisons arent that good. it wasnt an illegal or malicious act. Nobody was killed. Something unfortunate came about during a celebration where some bad judgement was used. Putting everything into the right context and using the law, its pretty easy to realize that hes not going to jail, nor should he. Hes not a bad person or a "Thug" like you suggest because of the coco incident. fact of that matter is, if Gomes was on my team I would have been cheering him on if the roles were reversed in that brawl. The law is the law AM. malicious intent.

Again, what did Gomes think would happen when he kicked full cans of beer into the stands?

And if a fan did that, what do you think would had happened to him?

I serioulsy hope that you aren't giving anyone any legal advice.

Looks like even the man hit with the can was mad. problem was he was mad at himself for not catching the can in the celebration that he was a WILLING PARTICIPANT in. Imagine that. At least I understand the law AM and I dont make things up to fil my arguement...

Legal Reasoning

The concept of malicious intent exists because there are a number of crimes in which malice must be proven in order for the act to become a crime. This includes crimes of murder in some jurisdictions, where without the finding of malicious intent the charge would possibly be dropped or changed to a lesser crime of manslaughter. The concept is found most often in American court cases and was derived from the English system of common law.

Types

In many cases, malicious intent comes in one of two forms: expressed intent or implied intent. Malice is considered expressed in a murder case, for instance, when a jury finds that an individual deliberately intended to take the life of another person. It would be implied if the expressed intention cannot be found but there exists no evidence that there was provocation for the murder to occur.

Defamation

Malicious intent comes up frequently in cases involving libel, slander and general defamation. Starting with the 1964 Supreme Court case The New York Times v Sullivan, standards were altered has to how malicious intent figured in to such cases. The case involved the Times reporting on the civil rights campaign. It changed the way the media can present parody and information about public figures by elevating the standard.

After the case, public figures could only claim libel or slander if it could be proven that the publisher knew the information printed was false or that they went to print without concern with whether information was false or not. In many cases of defamation, it must also be proven that the speaker or publisher acted with malicious intent, meaning that the information was used in such a way as to cause harm to the plaintiff.

Strict Liability

There are crimes in which malicious intent does not come into play. While many criminal offenses are determined by proving malicious intent or "mens rea" (guilty mind), there are others in which simply committing the act is sufficient for a crime to have occurred in the eyes of the law. These strict liability crimes include statutory rape and many driving offenses.

Civil Law

In civil law, malicious intent is often used not only to prove whether losses are due the plaintiff, but it can also play into punitive damages for the defendant. If a judge or jury finds that malicious intent and gross negligence occurred, it can influence the application and amount of punitive damages the defendant will have to pay. This is wholly separate from monetary damages due to the plaintiff such as lost wages or hospital bills.

If you kick a beer can into a crowd and you kill someone, and there was NO INTENT, are you saying that is a LEGAL act? I will assume (I HOPE!) that you agree that a crime was committed.......

But in that same incident if no one got hurt, then it was not an illegal act. - that is what everyone seems to think here with few exceptions......

OK...

Then with Drinking and Driving......It is illegal regardless if anyone got hurt or not. OK fine.......then why don't the same rules apply to the beer can? If there is no one is hurt as a result of drinking and driving then why is it a crime? Both actions are putting innocent people at risk.

Note: Of course the mere act of kicking a can is not illegal. The mere act of swinging a baseball bat is not illegal either. But if you do these things in the middle of a crowd - THAT DID NOT VOLUNTEER TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR GAME - then you are engaging in Reckless Behavior which is a crime. Automatic arrest. If there is an injured party that will be correlated to the amount of damage in a civil matter (although it can affect the degree of the crime and the punishment). But also, and make no mistake about it, technically even the people who ducked and were not hit are considered injured parties.

Again, what did Gomes think would happen when he kicked full cans of beer into the stands?

And if a fan did that, what do you think would had happened to him?

Drinking and Driving is against the law, regardless of the outcome. Kicking cans is not. Argue the morality, but actions have already been taken to outlaw drunk driving. No one will ever outloaw kicking cans much in the same way no one will outlaw throwing stones even though they can always cause bodily harm, too.

However, there can and very likely will be civil actions as a result of Gomes' behavior. And if there are, he brought them on himself and will have to handle it himself. Gomes won't and be charged with anything. We all know how this will end, and the key word is "settlement."

If you kick a beer can into a crowd and you kill someone, and there was NO INTENT, are you saying that is a LEGAL act? I will assume (I HOPE!) that you agree that a crime was committed.......

But in that same incident if no one got hurt, then it was not an illegal act. - that is what everyone seems to think here with few exceptions......

OK...

Then with Drinking and Driving......It is illegal regardless if anyone got hurt or not. OK fine.......then why don't the same rules apply to the beer can? If there is no one is hurt as a result of drinking and driving then why is it a crime? Both actions are putting innocent people at risk.

Note: Of course the mere act of kicking a can is not illegal. The mere act of swinging a baseball bat is not illegal either. But if you do these things in the middle of a crowd - THAT DID NOT VOLUNTEER TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR GAME - then you are engaging in Reckless Behavior which is a crime. Automatic arrest. If there is an injured party that will be correlated to the amount of damage in a civil matter (although it can affect the degree of the crime and the punishment). But also, and make no mistake about it, technically even the people who ducked and were not hit are considered injured parties.

Again, what did Gomes think would happen when he kicked full cans of beer into the stands?

And if a fan did that, what do you think would had happened to him?

Drinking and Driving is against the law, regardless of the outcome. Kicking cans is not. Argue the morality, but actions have already been taken to outlaw drunk driving. No one will ever outloaw kicking cans much in the same way no one will outlaw throwing stones even though they can always cause bodily harm, too.

However, there can and very likely will be civil actions as a result of Gomes' behavior. And if there are, he brought them on himself and will have to handle it himself. Gomes won't and be charged with anything. We all know how this will end, and the key word is "settlement."

Looks like some med bills, a few souveniers and playoff tix for the gentleman cut open by the can...there settled. He was a good sport about it and understood what was going on. Obviously hes not some money hungry person looking for a silly amount of $$ for no good reason.

I think weve all agreed that it wasnt the smartest thing to do notin. Were arguing the matter of it not being illegal like AM thinks it is. He has given every ridiculous analogy he can think of to defend it. There was obviously no malicious intent as well as the man being a willing participant trying to catch the can.

Smart? Not at all...Illegal? no...Comparable to chucking a rock into a crowd with malicious intent or drunk driving? not even close.

If you kick a beer can into a crowd and you kill someone, and there was NO INTENT, are you saying that is a LEGAL act? I will assume (I HOPE!) that you agree that a crime was committed.......

But in that same incident if no one got hurt, then it was not an illegal act. - that is what everyone seems to think here with few exceptions......

OK...

Then with Drinking and Driving......It is illegal regardless if anyone got hurt or not. OK fine.......then why don't the same rules apply to the beer can? If there is no one is hurt as a result of drinking and driving then why is it a crime? Both actions are putting innocent people at risk.

Note: Of course the mere act of kicking a can is not illegal. The mere act of swinging a baseball bat is not illegal either. But if you do these things in the middle of a crowd - THAT DID NOT VOLUNTEER TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR GAME - then you are engaging in Reckless Behavior which is a crime. Automatic arrest. If there is an injured party that will be correlated to the amount of damage in a civil matter (although it can affect the degree of the crime and the punishment). But also, and make no mistake about it, technically even the people who ducked and were not hit are considered injured parties.

Again, what did Gomes think would happen when he kicked full cans of beer into the stands?

And if a fan did that, what do you think would had happened to him?

Drinking and Driving is against the law, regardless of the outcome. Kicking cans is not. Argue the morality, but actions have already been taken to outlaw drunk driving. No one will ever outloaw kicking cans much in the same way no one will outlaw throwing stones even though they can always cause bodily harm, too.

However, there can and very likely will be civil actions as a result of Gomes' behavior. And if there are, he brought them on himself and will have to handle it himself. Gomes won't and be charged with anything. We all know how this will end, and the key word is "settlement."

Looks like some med bills, a few souveniers and playoff tix for the gentleman cut open by the can...there settled. He was a good sport about it and understood what was going on. Obviously hes not some money hungry person looking for a silly amount of $$ for no good reason.

I think weve all agreed that it wasnt the smartest thing to do notin. Were arguing the matter of it not being illegal like AM thinks it is. He has given every ridiculous analogy he can think of to defend it. There was obviously no malicious intent as well as the man being a willing participant trying to catch the can.

Smart? Not at all...Illegal? no...Comparable to chucking a rock into a crowd with malicious intent or drunk driving? not even close.

It was never illegal, but it was always horribly stupid. Gomes was very lucky the fan was reasonable about it. Heck, I am not so sure I would have been. I mean, playoff tickets are nice, but I have a mortgage!!

I'm Korean and people assume that I am good in math and computers. So not true. LOL

People also assume that I like rice. I prefer a wheat bagel toasted (or everything bagel) with extra cream cheese at Dunkin Donut over a bowl of rice or noodles. LOL

I never understood why Asians say they don't want to have people assume they are good in math and computers. I'm blonde. Do you want to swap stereotypes with me? I'd love to have people assume I was good at math and computers. Basically, they always just assume I don't have a brain in my head at all. :)

I'm Korean and people assume that I am good in math and computers. So not true. LOL

People also assume that I like rice. I prefer a wheat bagel toasted (or everything bagel) with extra cream cheese at Dunkin Donut over a bowl of rice or noodles. LOL

I never understood why Asians say they don't want to have people assume they are good in math and computers. I'm blonde. Do you want to swap stereotypes with me? I'd love to have people assume I was good at math and computers. Basically, they always just assume I don't have a brain in my head at all. :)

Like Shane Victorino,my niece is also Hawaiian and she absolutely loves Spam.She eats it 4-5 times a week,not because she can't afford something different,she just digs Spam.

I can eat it maybe a couple of times a year if it's grilled with eggs,but that's it for me.

From wikipedia:

The residents of the state of Hawaii consume the most Spam per capita in the United States. Hawaiian Burger King restaurants began serving Spam in 2007 to compete with the local McDonald's chains.[15][16] In Hawaii, Spam is so popular it is sometimes referred to as "The Hawaiian Steak".[17]One popular Spam dish in Hawaii is Spam musubi, where cooked Spam is combined with rice andnori seaweed and classified as onigiri

The animal rights group PETA went after Victorino because of his love for Spam: